SURJIT KAUR Vs. HARPINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 17/5/2018 (Annexure P-6) vide which an application filed by the petitioner-defendant for seeking amendment of the written statement, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity being contrary to the settled law pertaining to the amendment of pleadings. He has vehemently argued that the trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law could not be a ground for denial to exercise its jurisdiction, which otherwise vested in it under other provisions of law. He submits that mere delay in filing of an application for amendment could not have been a ground to refuse the amendment, which had been sought by her vide application dtd. 23/4/2018 (Annexure P-4). He further submits that it was on account of an accident slip that the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the proposed amendment could not be included initially when the written statement was filed by her. He further urged that the proposed amendment was necessary for just and effective adjudication of the matter in issue between the parties. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham and another, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 129 and Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 597.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application (Annexure P-4) had been moved by the petitioner-defendant with an oblique motive to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. It is contended that the application (Annexure P-4) had been moved by the petitioner at a highly belated stage i.e. when the defendants evidence was underway. Hence, the impugned order could not be faulted with and had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. He also contends that the application, which had been filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as under the garb of Sec. 151 CPC, the petitioner was in fact trying to seek amendment of the written statement and had the proposed amendment been actually allowed, it would have changed the entire complexion of the defence of the petitioner.